The Implementing Rules and Regulations of Section 21 of R.A. No. 9165 reads:
SECTION 21. Custody and Disposition of Confiscated, Seized and/or Surrendered Dangerous Drugs, Plant Sources of Dangerous Drugs, Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals, Instruments/Paraphernalia and/or Laboratory Equipment.- The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and essential chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated, seized and/or surrendered, for proper disposition in the following manner:(a) The apprehending officer/team having initial custody and control of the drugs shall, immediately after seizure and confiscation, physically inventory and photograph the same in the presence of the accused or the person/s from whom such items were confiscated and/or seized, or his/her representative or counsel, a representative from the media and the Department of Justice (DOJ), and any elected public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the inventory and be given a copy thereof: Provided, that the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at the place where the search warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team, whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless seizures; Provided, finally, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such seizures of and custody over said items. [Emphasis Supplied]
The saving clause found in the IRR recognizes that there is no perfect chain of custody and such an expectation cannot be used as a standard for conviction. What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized items.[3]
In Saraum v. People,[4] the Court held that despite the non-compliance with the inventory and picture taking requirements, the confiscated drug can still be sufficient to convict the accused, thus:
In Saraum v. People,[4] the Court held that despite the non-compliance with the inventory and picture taking requirements, the confiscated drug can still be sufficient to convict the accused, thus:
In ascertaining the identity of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia presented in court as the ones actually seized from the accused, the prosecution must show that: (a) the prescribed procedure under Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 has been complied with or falls within the saving clause provided in Section 21 (a), Article II of the Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) of R.A. No. 9165; and (b) there was an unbroken link (not perfect link) in the chain of custody with respect to the confiscated items.
Although Section 21(1) of R.A. No. 9165 mandates that the apprehending team must immediately conduct a physical inventory of the seized items and photograph them, non-compliance therewith is not fatal as long as there is a justifiable ground and as long as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the confiscated/seized items are properly preserved by the apprehending team. While nowhere in the prosecution evidence show the "justifiable ground" which may excuse the police operatives involved in the buy-bust operation from making the physical inventory and taking a photograph of the drug paraphernalia confiscated and/or seized, such omission shall not render Saraum's arrest illegal or the items seized/confiscated from him as inadmissible in evidence. Said "justifiable ground" will remain unknown in the light of the apparent failure of Saraum to specifically challenge the custody and safekeeping or the issue of disposition and preservation of the subject drug paraphernalia before the trial court. He cannot be allowed too late in the day to question the police officers' alleged non-compliance with Section 21 for the first time on appeal.The chain of custody rule requires the identification of the persons who handled the confiscated items for the purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of the illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they were seized from the accused until the time they are presented in court. Section l(b) of Dangerous Drugs Board Regulation No. 1, Series of 2002, implementing R.A. No. 9165, defines chain of custody as follows:
In Mallillin v. People, the Court discussed how the chain of custody of seized items should be established, thus:Chain of Custody means the duly recorded authorized movements and custody of seized drugs or controlled chemicals or plant sources of dangerous drugs or laboratory equipment of each stage, from the time of seizure/confiscation to receipt in the forensic laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court for destruction. Such record of movements and custody of seized item shall include the identity and signature of the person who held temporary custody of the seized item, the date and time when such transfer of custody were made in the course of safekeeping and use in court as evidence, and the final disposition.
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It would include testimony
about every link in the chain, from the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was received, where it was and what happened to it while in the witness' possession, the condition in which it was received and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in the chain. These witnesses would then describe the precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone not in the chain to have possession of the same.
While the procedure on the chain of custody should be perfect and unbroken, in reality, it is almost always impossible to obtain an unbroken chain. Thus, failure to strictly comply with Section 21(1), Article II of R.A. No. 9165 does not necessarily render an accused person's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated from him inadmissible.
xxx Under Section 3 of Rule 128 of the Rules of Court, evidence is admissible when it is relevant to the issue and is not excluded by the law or these rules. For evidence to be inadmissible, there should be a law or rule which forbids its reception. If there is no such law or rule, the evidence must be admitted subject only to the evidentiary weight that will be accorded it by the courts, xxx
We do not find any provision or statement in said law or in any rule that will bring about the non-admissibility of the confiscated and/or seized drugs due to non-compliance with Section 21 of Republic Act No. 9165. The issue therefore, if there is non-compliance with said section, is not of admissibility, but of weight - evidentiary merit or probative value -to be given the evidence. The weight to be given by the courts on said evidence depends on the circumstances obtaining in each case.
The most important factor is the preservation of the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items. In this case, the prosecution was able to demonstrate that the integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drug paraphernalia had not been compromised because it established the crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized items from the time they were first discovered until they were brought to the court for examination. Even though the prosecution failed to submit in evidence the physical inventory and photograph of the drug paraphernalia, this will not render Saraum's arrest illegal or the items seized from him inadmissible. There is substantial compliance by the police as to the required procedure on the custody and control of the confiscated items. The succession of events established by evidence and the overall handling of the seized items by specified individuals all show that the evidence seized were the same evidence subsequently identified and testified to in open court.There can be no doubt as to the integrity of the confiscated drugs herein considering that their whereabouts had been accounted for from the time of confiscation and marking until their eventual presentation in court. PO2 Tomas A. Culiat, Jr. testified that when he received the prohibited drug from accused Macospag, he first placed the latter under arrest and immediately marked the contraband with "Exh. A ECT/ENM 8/26/05." The three (3) sachets recovered from accused Tuazon had also been immediately marked ("B-l ECT/ENM 8/26/05," "B-2 ECT/ENM 8/26/05" and "B-3 ECT/ENM 8/26/05") in their presence. Based on the testimonies and evidence, only PO2 Culiat had been in possession of the contraband until he surrendered the same to the Crime Laboratory for the necessary test. The forensic chemist also testified to have received four (4) sachets with the same markings as testified by PO2 Culiat. He, thereafter, issued a report confirming that the substance confiscated from them were shabu and which consequently had been submitted to the trial court.
Since the integrity of the confiscated drugs had been preserved, the conviction of the accused-appellants should be sustained.
No comments:
Post a Comment